There has been something that has been bugging me about the new "Star Contributors" announcement.

I would love for Ken to give me some feedback on this... and would like other peoples thoughts on it.

Ken said...

Quote:Among these contributors are a select group of users who's prolific contribution quantity is exceeded only by their razor-sharp accuracy. We thought it was high time (past time) that we recognize these users in some small way.

Nice thought... but not sure what I think about how his post reads... and I have some rather disturbing concerns.

Quote:If you see this symbol next to your name, you can know that your contribution accuracy has been recognized as above and beyond. If you don't yet have the symbol, keep at it, and focus on contributions that adhere to the contribution rules and add significant value.

I don't believe this is anything more then "These people has over some number contributions that has been accepted." It has absolutely nothing to do with accuracy. OR it being a "select group."

I have looked at this and it not only includes people that I believe deserves recognition... but includes people that has publicly said they would do things "their way" despite what the rules say... as well as people that has not contributed anything (or even been on the forum) for years!

All that is well and good if he just wants a notation for people that contribute a lot! But this next quote worries me. Worries me a lot!...

Quote:Additionally, this symbol is more than just cosmetic. In the near future, we're rolling out a fast track approval process for some of the contributions from star contributors. The net result is that these will be approved consistently more quickly.

Why does it worry me? Because of the people with this symbol that don't care about our rules. Especially the ones that publicly said they will do things their way over what the rules say. Giving us even less time to vote down bad contributions then we have now!

No! I fear this can be a very bad thing for the community and the online database.

Show your appreciation Invelos!... I am all for that!...but don't make it harder on us that do care about the database and following the rules!

So not only do I want other people's opinion here. But so badly want more of a statement. possibly conversation with Ken here as well. So I also sent a link to this thread through a support ticket.

I don't believe this is anything more then "These people has over some number contributions that has been accepted." It has absolutely nothing to do with accuracy. OR it being a "select group."

You are incorrect. It works exactly as I've described. The initial indicator list was populated with a set of rules based on all prior contributions. Accuracy was absolutely part of that calculation, in fact it was considered far more strongly than quantity.

Some additional information on this feature:- The public indicators are on/off, but our internal system uses a scale from -1 to 5, which is shown to the contribution evaluator.- Initial fill was done with all historical contributions, but ongoing automated adjustments favor recent contributions more strongly. If there are contributors going against the rules, they will be demoted quickly, and will at some point lose the forum glyph.- Contribution evaluators have the ability to flag a contributor manually. If necessary, adjustments can be made by me to that contributor's status.

I'm willing to remove the public indicator if the community desires that, but the internal system will be unchanged.

The public indicator is of no concern to me. It can be there. What is in concern to me is the fact that some people that have publicly stated they would do things their way no matter what the rules say will get their contributions fast tracked. I personally think no ones contributions should be fast tracked anyway... let alone someone who has publicly stated they are willing to do things their own way despite what they rules say.

I understand where you're coming from, Pete, but I don't share your concern. Don't confuse fast tracking with automatic approval. I'm assuming that if one of these people you're worried about makes a rule-breaking contribution, it would get fast tracked to a decline. The speed at which a contribution get approved or decline is irrelevant...the rules still need to be followed.

But the thing is... it effects the time voters have to vote no. We both know that if a contribution is put through with little to no votes then the screeners will not know any better whether or not the rules are being followed. That combined with the many people we have voting yes to everything... it just equals up to nothing good coming from it.

Quote:But the thing is... it effects the time voters have to vote no. We both know that if a contribution is put through with little to no votes then the screeners will not know any better whether or not the rules are being followed.

So you're telling us that the screeners are worthless, and know nothing more than what the voters tell them? I doubt very much that voters are better at following the rules than the screeners are.

I don't have any problem with there being a two-tier system where contributors without a proven good track record have their contributions scrutinized more closely.

No... I am not saying they are worthless... what I am saying is that the screeners do not have every title in their hands to check to see if something is following the rules or not.... or if it is even correct information or not. The screeners know little more then what the contribution says and what the votes say when it comes to whether or not it follows the rules or is correct at all.

And Ken is not making it so that there is "a two-tier system where contributors without a proven good track record have their contributions scrutinized more closely"... he is keeping the voting time the same for those that have not proven themselves and making it shorter for those that has lots of contributions go through. I see that as the opposite and I don't feel anyone's voting time should be shortened from what it is now... it will only allow more mistakes and/or deceptive contributions go through.

And I agree that not all the voters care to say yes or no that it is following the rules... which is part of exactly why the voting time shouldn't be shortened... not for anyone!

The "fast track" is currently set at four days, and the "normal track" is currently set at five (this was four, but we extended to give additional time to vote). In either event, both tracks are currently behind those marks.

I personally just see reducing voting time as a bad thing... no matter how much it is reduced or who it is reduced for.

now if say you increased it for the "normal" contribution (6 or 7 days) and left it as now for them to work up to (4 or 5 days)... that would have been a different story... and I wouldn't of had any concerns what so ever.

Quote:I personally just see reducing voting time as a bad thing... no matter how much it is reduced or who it is reduced for.

now if say you increased it for the "normal" contribution (6 or 7 days) and left it as now for them to work up to (4 or 5 days)... that would have been a different story... and I wouldn't of had any concerns what so ever.

Quote:You are incorrect. It works exactly as I've described. The initial indicator list was populated with a set of rules based on all prior contributions. Accuracy was absolutely part of that calculation, in fact it was considered far more strongly than quantity.

I can confirm that this clearly is the case. I only have 831 profile and 136 image contributions yet I am a 'Star Contributor' (I hadn't really noticed until I read this thread).

Why am I a 'Star Contributor' with so few contributions, compared to some of the others? Probably because my acceptance rate is as close to 100% as you can get without actually being 100%.

This is a clear indication that accuracy was far more important than quantity.

No dictator, no invader can hold an imprisoned population by force of arms forever.There is no greater power in the universe than the need for freedom.Against this power, governments and tyrants and armies cannot stand.The Centauri learned this lesson once.We will teach it to them again.Though it take a thousand years, we will be free.- Citizen G'Kar

Quote:You are incorrect. It works exactly as I've described. The initial indicator list was populated with a set of rules based on all prior contributions. Accuracy was absolutely part of that calculation, in fact it was considered far more strongly than quantity.

I can confirm that this clearly is the case. I only have 831 profile and 136 image contributions yet I am a 'Star Contributor' (I hadn't really noticed until I read this thread).

Why am I a 'Star Contributor' with so few contributions, compared to some of the others? Probably because my acceptance rate is as close to 100% as you can get without actually being 100%.

This is a clear indication that accuracy was far more important than quantity.

Quote:You are incorrect. It works exactly as I've described. The initial indicator list was populated with a set of rules based on all prior contributions. Accuracy was absolutely part of that calculation, in fact it was considered far more strongly than quantity.

I can confirm that this clearly is the case. I only have 831 profile and 136 image contributions yet I am a 'Star Contributor' (I hadn't really noticed until I read this thread).

Why am I a 'Star Contributor' with so few contributions, compared to some of the others? Probably because my acceptance rate is as close to 100% as you can get without actually being 100%.

This is a clear indication that accuracy was far more important than quantity.

I have only 519 accepted profile contributions and 295 accepted image contributions.

I support the idea of recognizing contributors. I can't comment on the methodology, criteria or the rules, but I think the concept is great. Over the years, I have made several posts expressing my personal gratitude for the people that make the database, and have publicly apologized for not doing more in that area myself. I do what I do, but there is no substitute for the database - period, end of discussion!